Atheists who believe in moral truth must be nihilists.

[_cksalmon]

Without defining all entities involved it is impossible to have a logical discussion on anything. Without those definitions the terms used are essentially meaningless.

I'd agree that without some sort of minimal definition of the deity in question, including generically the way in which "he" interacts with the universe, we're not going to get far in discussing what a universe without him/her/it would necessarily entail.

We don't need to show God exists to demonstrate that a world in which God exists would not have the same consequences as one in which God does not.

Yeah, actually you do. First you have to establish that A. there is a "God", B. the powers and scope of action of that "God", and C. the general morals and ethics that "God" operates by at the very least. Otherwise your comparision of Dietic universe verus a a purely physical universe without any supernatural influence is less than meaningless.

One need not establish that there truly is a god to discuss what a universe without said god would look like. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of all logical thought experiments anent inherently non-demonstrable hypotheticals (think, brain in the vat here) or known counterfactuals. Both are commonplace in philosophy.

One does, however, need to define the generic contours of the hypothetical god under consideration in order for the logical implications of his/her/its absence to be reasonably discussed.

Best.

CKS

[_JAK]

ALITD’s selected comments:

Yong Xi wrote:
Does He do this for atheists?

ALITD:
God is available to those who will listen to him. Now please stop derailing my thread.

ALITD:
My understanding of God's nature derives from personal revelation, and my knowledge of it is as basic as my knowledge that my senses are an avenue to truth.

JAK:
Having read through all the posts here including yours, you appear to be disingenuous.

You begin with a kind of pseudo-academic ambiguous use of words leaving the reader to discern what you intend. Then on page 8, you reveal your simplistic mentality well indoctrinated by religion.

You simply claim God, clarify that your God is male, and further claim sound as in “listen to him.”

Then you admit that you’re entirely subjective as you make further claims regarding your “personal revelation, and my (your) knowledge...”

You are not a light in the darkness, you are darkness. Taken as a whole, you are duplicitous, tricky, and as dishonest as any religion.

JAK

[_Tommy]

Mr. Coffee,

What a tragedy you would pick a substance forbidden by the Lord for our consumption as your moniker. Our Father in Heaven weaps over these kinds of rebellious displays. Please step into my office sometime and let's talk about the blessings the Word of Wisdom can bring into our lives.

You wrote, "Smoke what? Seriously, did you learn about logic off the back of a cerial box or something?

Without defining all entities involved it is impossible to have a logical discussion on anything. Without those definitions the terms used are essentially meaningless."

I think what "A Light" (a marvellous name indeed! For He is!) meant was that we don't have to establish the emperical truth of something before we can discuss it's logical implications, not that we don't have to define our terms.

Yeah, actually you do. First you have to establish that A. there is a "God",

Reasoning from counterfactuals is clearly within the bounds of logic my good brother. The progress of human knowledge would screech to a halt if we could not do so. However, we should always pray, and invite the Spirit to be part of our pursuits of logic and truth.

[_Mr. Coffee]

One need not establish that there truly is a god to discuss what a universe without said god would look like.

You need to establish it for the sake of the premise if nothing else. Doesn't require fully proving that there really IS a god, only that you define what "god" is in reference to the premise.

[Rad]

My dear brother JAK,

Clearly you have not repented since the last time we crossed paths. The door to my office is always open if you would like to talk.

You write, "You simply claim God, clarify that your God is male, and further claim sound as in “listen to him.”"

We know by divine revelation that God is male. And a recent defender of our faith, Kerry Shirts, has clearified just how literal God's maleness is. But we need not invoke such deep doctrine to understand what "A Light" is telling us. Have you ever heard of a metaphor, JAK? When someone says to "listen to God", it could mean a number of different things, least of which would be tied to a thoroughgoing anthropomorphism.

Then you admit that you’re entirely subjective as you make further claims regarding your “personal revelation, and my (your) knowledge...”

How does claiming personal revelation and also claiming (his) knowledge make him "entirely subjective?" If I claim to have a blue marble and a brown one, does that mean all my marbles are either blue or brown?

And how objective or subjective are you JAK? For instance, is the statement "Then on page 8, you reveal your simplistic mentality well indoctrinated by religion." 100% objective? 90% objective? 50% objective?

Can you prove that "A Light" is indoctrinated by religion any better than "A Light" can prove their is a God?

And let me take the following opportunity to teach, you wrote,

You are not a light in the darkness, you are darkness.

Only a few lines after,

"and further claim sound as in “listen to him.”

Has "A light" established the literal "sound" of God's literal voice any less than you have established an identity relation between the poster known as "A light" and literal darkness?

[_Mr. Coffee]

What a tragedy you would pick a substance forbidden by the Lord for our consumption as your moniker. Our Father in Heaven weaps over these kinds of rebellious displays. Please step into my office sometime and let's talk about the blessings the Word of Wisdom can bring into our lives.

And give up all the drinking, wenching, fighting, cussing, and other assorted bad habits I've grown to enjoy? And my coffee is covered under the same phrase I use when people tell me I should get rid of all the firearms I own...

Molon Lab.

I think what "A Light" (a marvellous name indeed! For He is!) meant was that we don't have to establish the emperical truth of something before we can discuss it's logical implications, not that we don't have to define our terms.

Wow, I guess critical thinking and basical logic weren't covered in missionary school... You don't have to establish something as emphirical fact in order to discuss it, but you do have to define it otherwise you end up with abiguity or outright misunderstanding.

Reasoning from counterfactuals is clearly within the bounds of logic my good brother.

Never said that it wasn't, Tommy. Can you show where I did say that? If that were the case then you could discuss much of anything other than established fact.

[_guy sajer]

And, pray tell, what specifically is God's nature?

And, more, what empirical evidence can you offer to account for it?

We don't actually need to establish something is the case to discuss the logical consequences if something was the case. We don't need to show God exists to demonstrate that a world in which God exists would not have the same consequences as one in which God does not.

I am not a logical positivist. Perhaps you are, but I do not think the only way to legitimately come to knowledge of something is through empirical evidence. Since you do, might I ask you to prove that your senses are a reliable way to know truth without begging the question and using empirical evidence? My understanding of God's nature derives from personal revelation, and my knowledge of it is as basic as my knowledge that my senses are an avenue to truth.

I do not believe that empirical evidence is the only way to know truth. That's a pretty large leap from my simple question asking you to demonstrate to me what God's nature is. You are the one who claimed, by implication, that you knew God's nature, so I simply asked you how you came to this knowledge and whether you could provide any empirial evidence for it. And that makes me a logical positivist just how . . .?

I do believe, however, that empirical evidence is important and, where avilable, generally Trump's one's senses,, and almost always Trump's personal revelation. I see no empirical evidence for the God of Mormonism and Christianity and plenty of empirical evidence to the contrary, and I have no reason whatsoever to accept your personal revelation on the subject, particularly when I also see plenty of empirical evidence that personal revelation is a woefully unreliable guide to truth. So, no offense, but weighing in the balance the value of empirical evidence with the value of your personal revelation, I'll have to come down on the side of empirical evidence.

So, back to the question, pray tell, what is God's precise nature?

Why is it also that God chooses to reveal this to you, while he keeps his true nature hidden from so many billions of others?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[_Gazelam]

Enquiring minds want to know.

You hit the nail on the head. Few inquire.

[_beastie]

You hit the nail on the head. Few inquire.

Nonsense. I know many who have inquired, over and over, to no avail.

[_guy sajer]

Enquiring minds want to know.

You hit the nail on the head. Few inquire.

I enquired of God, and enquired, and enquired, and so on.

No answer. Not one. Not ever.

Then I enquired from a different source, my own sense of reason and evidence, and I received an answer.